After several months of airstrikes , the international coalition 's operation against ISIS in Syria has failed to dismantle the group 's structure of command and has pushed its militants further beyond the country 's borders .

Civilians and opposition rebel forces have been left frustrated by the coalition 's narrow focus , lack of a clear agenda and apparent failure to take into consideration the dynamics of the wider Syrian conflict .

Late last month , Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said that without U.N. Security Council approval , the U.S. strikes lacked legitimacy . But in comments to media he said : `` Anyway , if their aim is to strike against ISIS , it 's OK . ''

Does this statement mean that the Syrian government views the coalition strikes as beneficial to its hold on power ? Does the old Arab proverb the `` enemy of my enemy is my friend '' apply to this case and to the reality on the ground ?

In the short term , the international coalition 's counter-terrorism strategy may certainly be in the interests of the Assad regime .

Military strikes are to some extent forcing ISIS fighters to retreat from territories under their control in northern and eastern Syria .

Other opposition groups -- including the Free Syrian Army -- are unlikely to have the capability to take advantage of these strikes .

The Syrian military is still superior when it comes to aerial force and may be best placed to retake ISIS territories .

Although the Gulf states would like to see an anti-ISIS offensive that would ultimately lead to the collapse of the Syrian government , the U.S. and Western allies have made it clear that regime change is not an objective of this military campaign .

Coalition strikes have not been targeting the Syrian government 's military forces or infrastructure .

Thus the Syrian government has found the U.S. , Western allies , and Arab states on the side of its own allies Russia and the Islamic Republic of Iran -- aiding Assad against one of his most powerful and influential threats .

Ironically , the same nations that may have indirectly contributed to the creation of ISIS itself , are now investing their military capital into fighting it .

So far , however , the balance of power has not shifted significantly either in favor of the government forces or rebel groups .

ISIS has been pushed out of some territories , but is advancing in others .

Although government forces have made slight advances in Aleppo , resource constraints have prevented the military from taking full advantage of the coalition strikes .

Strategically , Assad needs to focus on holding the large cities already under government control .

Civilian suffering

More fundamentally , the coalition 's anti-ISIS campaign has deflected attention from the Syrian government and armed rebel group 's atrocities against civilians .

There are claims the Assad government has in fact ratcheted up its attacks in the shadow of the strikes .

The opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights on Thursday reported that regime airstrikes had killed 221 civilians , `` taking advantage of the international media focusing on ISIS and Ein al-Arab ` Kobani ' . ''

Syrian civilians might also question why the international community decided to intervene against ISIS after ignoring -- for several years -- the Syrian government 's brutality in a conflict that has led to more than 190,000 deaths and more than 3,200,000 refugees .

The offensive has not alleviated the humanitarian crisis facing the Syrian people and the strikes ' unintended consequences -- civilian casualties -- are increasingly leading to a domestic outcry against such intervention .

Tackling the disease

For some , the question is why the coalition does not address the fundamental roots of the war , tackling the disease itself rather than the symptoms .

On a long term basis , the coalition strikes against ISIS in Syria will inevitably keep expanding , working to escalate the conflict .

A strategic shift to target the Syrian government 's military infrastructure is unlikely as many regional and international state actors have a stake in Syria .

Coalition training may gradually improve some of the Syrian rebel groups ' military capabilities and strategic planning but the current balance of power between the government forces and various rebel and armed groups will likely continue .

Domestic , regional , international and non-state players will continue to pursue their own goals .

Amid ongoing instability and competing interests , Syria 's social and political environment will be ripe for further radicalization , militarization and ultimately further civilian suffering .

In the end , both ISIS and Assad may be the beneficiaries of the foreign airstrikes , using them as a pretext to further advance their political interests .

A narrow and short-term counter-terrorism strategy that fails to take into account the many layers of the wider Syrian conflict is unlikely to succeed .

@highlight

Syria has said coalition strikes lack legitimacy but aim of striking ISIS is OK

@highlight

Majid Rafizadeh says in the short term , coalition strikes may help the Assad regime

@highlight

But he says the coalition strategy fails to take the wider conflict into account

@highlight

The conflict will continue to escalate and Syrian civilians will suffer , he says